NotMeNotYou said:
New CoC update!

This it's not change of the rules, but adding record worthy offenses from the DNP list directly into the rules. The goal of this change is to allow people to directly see what will lead to records when posting without having to read both the CoC and the DNP list.

Can we please add : NO dipictionsof children or someone that looks like a child (under 18) they can not be less then a 1/2 of their size and the same species of animals.

There would be no point of not loading child porn if you are drawing child porn. Please I beg you its morally wrong


zhi1911 said:
Can we please add : NO dipictionsof children or someone that looks like a child (under 18) they can not be less thena quarter of tere size an the same species of animals.

There would be no point of not loading child porn if you are drawing child porn. Please I beg you its morally wrong

1. 17 year olds are not children, nor do they look like children. Also, neoteny is a thing. (Relax, Kagami Shuna is over 18 in this gif.)
2. If you don't want to see children or young teens, try adding "young human" to your blacklist.
3. Morality is subjective, and irrelevant in fictional art.


zhi1911 said:
Can we please add : NO dipictionsof children or someone that looks like a child (under 18) they can not be less then a 1/2 of their size and the same species of animals.

There would be no point of not loading child porn if you are drawing child porn. Please I beg you its morally wrong

*sigh*

You cannot draw child porn. Child porn involves a real human child being sexually abused in front of a real physical camera. What you are calling "child porn" is in fact NOT the same thing, because it is drawn images of fictional anthropomorphic characters and no one is actually being abused.

Seriously, please stop trying to equate cub pornography with child pornography. They are NOT the same thing.


zhi1911 said:
Can we please add : NO dipictionsof children or someone that looks like a child (under 18) they can not be less thena quarter of tere size an the same species of animals.

There would be no point of not loading child porn if you are drawing child porn. Please I beg you its morally wrong

Could you rephrase that entirely? It sounds like you are saying no child pornography, which is already ruled as no Real Life Pornography, and that you do not know that what is hosted on site and child pornography is two separate things.

*edit* here, a forum where this topic has been brought up. All of this would probably be better suited there.


InannaEloah said:
You cannot draw child porn. Child porn involves a real human child being sexually abused in front of a real physical camera. What you are calling "child porn" is in fact NOT the same thing, because it is drawn images of fictional anthropomorphic characters and no one is actually being abused.

Seriously, please stop trying to equate cub pornography with child pornography. They are NOT the same thing.

I think he meant this, and I'm pretty sure fictional children still count as children just as fictional dogs still count as dogs.


BlueDingo said:
I think he meant this, and I'm pretty sure fictional children still count as children just as fictional dogs still count as dogs.

U.S. law has tried several times to ban fictional underage erotica and has, surprisingly, been successfully challenged and pushed back every time.

This is courtesy of the obscenity principle - but underage erotica is probably way more likely to be found by a jury to be obscene, compared to erotica of only adult characters, all other factors unchanged.


BlueDingo said:
I think he meant this, and I'm pretty sure fictional children still count as children just as fictional dogs still count as dogs.

No, because in order for it to qualify as a child, it needs to be an actual identifiable real child. A fictional character in a drawing does not qualify, at least under US law, as a child, and therefore the drawings you linked to are *not* child pornography. Child pornography is child abuse, because it involves real children being physically abused. A drawing of a fictional character is not a photograph of a real child being physically abused, so no, it is not child porn.

Also, fictional dogs do not count as real dogs in US law either. A drawing of a fictional dog being fucked from behind by a human is not considered bestiality in the United States. In the same manner that Bugs Bunny is not considered a real rabbit, so a drawn dog in a furry art picture is not considered a real dog.


InannaEloah said:
No, because in order for it to qualify as a child, it needs to be an actual identifiable real child. A fictional character in a drawing does not qualify, at least under US law, as a child, and therefore the drawings you linked to are *not* child pornography. Child pornography is child abuse, because it involves real children being physically abused. A drawing of a fictional character is not a photograph of a real child being physically abused, so no, it is not child porn.

Also, fictional dogs do not count as real dogs in US law either. A drawing of a fictional dog being fucked from behind by a human is not considered bestiality in the United States. In the same manner that Bugs Bunny is not considered a real rabbit, so a drawn dog in a furry art picture is not considered a real dog.

I'm not referring to the terms as they are defined in law and I never said a fictional depiction counts as real. I'm speaking from more of a layman's perspective and using non-legal definitions for terms.


BlueDingo said:
I think he meant this, and I'm pretty sure fictional children still count as children just as fictional dogs still count as dogs.

not really... I can attack a dog in a game or read about one being attacked in a book, it does not equate dog abuse in the real world and the same can be said for drawings. they are not real they are 100% fiction


zhi1911 said:
Can we please add : NO dipictionsof children or someone that looks like a child (under 18) they can not be less then a 1/2 of their size and the same species of animals.

There would be no point of not loading child porn if you are drawing child porn. Please I beg you its morally wrong

I've looked at your profile and your comments, and I really think you need to check yourself. All you actually do is tell people to fuck themselves and to "stfu." The fact that you are here kinda scares me because you might be attempting to either troll or even worse, start an argument.


curseitkris said:
not really... I can attack a dog in a game or read about one being attacked in a book, it does not equate dog abuse in the real world and the same can be said for drawings. they are not real they are 100% fiction

Why do people keep interpreting "fictional thing is a thing" as "fictional thing is a real thing"? "A thing" and "a real thing" do not mean the same thing.

It doesn't matter if the thing in question is real or fictional, it still considered an instance of that thing. Seriously, I feel like I'm talking to people who look at this and with a straight face, would tell people "that thing is not a dog because that thing is not real".


IMO both curseitkris and you are being obtuse in opposite but equal ways.

What is relevant is whether the dog is legally a dog, not whether it is conceptually a dog. Fictional dogs do not have legal standing. The definition of 'real' is irrelevant.

(if this sounds hilariously pedantic, go talk to a lawyer for a while.)


BlueDingo said:
Why do people keep interpreting "fictional thing is a thing" as "fictional thing is a real thing"? "A thing" and "a real thing" do not mean the same thing.

It doesn't matter if the thing in question is real or fictional, it still considered an instance of that thing. Seriously, I feel like I'm talking to people who look at this and with a straight face, would tell people "that thing is not a dog because that thing is not real".

i've run across that type of person before as well. it's that whole inability to differentiate fiction from reality thing some people seem to suffer from.

1. this is a dog.

2.this is a real dog.

but apparently some people can't differentiate the 2 and consider the dog in #1 to be just as real as dog #2 despite #1 clearly being a picture someone drew. my first suspicion upon encountering such a person would be that something isn't quite right with their mind. o.O

a great example would be mr. pepper.


EDIT: Nevermind. I just realized I was replying to an older post.